The wrangling between one side and the other on the internet and between the political positions in Venezuela are not a surprise, especially during an election year. Venezuelan netizens are discussing the legality of the election campaign of President Hugo Chávez and the plans proposed by opposition candidate Henrique Capriles Radonski. Both sides are analyzing the proposals, attacking the candidates, and both have their followers. They doubt the National Electoral Council, and investigate the financial support of the candidates. Government plans are being rethought and the speeches spread.

Meanwhile, the road to the election in October intensifies by the day. In a contested election in which the opposition has finally managed to make a space for itself, the blogosphere reflects rising expectations on both sides.

Chavez’ opportunism is over the top. Henrique Capriles Radonski's campaign manager Armando Briquet has substantiated seven specific allegations with documents and evidence before the National Electoral Council, which show the disproportions, imbalances and violations of regulations committed by the [Chavez] campaign on the very day of the official start of the presidential campaign.

Briquet documented that the Venezuelan public television channel, VTV, broadcast 6-1/2 hours of Chavez’ inauguration and only 11 minutes of Capriles’. The daily newspapers “VEA”, “La VOZ”, “Correo del Orinoco” and “Ultimas Noticias” published advertisements of Chavez’ public gathering last Sunday.

Also Daniel in his blog The Devil's Excrement points out what he sees as a breakdown of the law:

Thus, while Chavez finances his campaign in full violation of the law, in a manner that is punished with jail, the Superintendent of Banks goes fishing to see if any irrelevant amount of money is flowing to Capriles’ campaign via opposition leaders. This limits campaign contributions, as donors are afraid of being harrased for contributing to Capriles’ campaign, while all of the Government’s resources are at the service of Chavez’ efforts in blatant violation of the law.

A day or two ago, I heard part of a campaign speech by presidential candidate Capriles Radonski. […] In his speech Capriles said (paraphrasing from memory): “If the government believes the problem is capitalism, consumerism, movies and media …” Every opposition candidate should pay attention and realize that's not what the government believes. This is what a fairly large percentage of the voting population believes. You could say, yes, the Bolivarian Government of Venezuela is against capitalism and consumerism, and that the President Chavez’ plan–ideological and cultural revolution argued and supported by abundant evidence–supports the idea that imported films and media are central players in that problem. But it is also true that a percentage of the population has voted many times to support that revolutionary vision. And these are civilians and non- civilians, not (only) [from the] government.

Similarly, the blogger responds to accusations made about the fairness of the National Electoral Council:

In another vein, but on the same topic: I was told that some in the opposition are already saying that the CNE [Spanish acronym for National Electoral Council] is not reliable enough to carry out the approaching presidential election. That is, in Venezuela there is democracy when it suits the opposition and when it doesn't suit them, they say there is no democracy. The machines from the CNE are good enough for the primaries but not for a national election. We play by the rules of the game, but we say–when we're still losing–that the game is rigged and that the rules do not work or that the other players are cheaters. There is democracy when voters elect an opposition mayor or governor, but there is dictatorship and kleptocracy when people vote for the revolution. And then we talk about the defense of democracy and justice and the people, etc., etc.

[…] Now more than ever [there is] the need to save the world, the people, from these vampires who ravage it. [That's] the commitment my President [Chávez] stated in his plan for government. And the continuing stupidity of the aspiring adversary: “The Government wants to save the planet, the human species, I propose to solve the problems of the country.” A Venezuela in the middle of nowhere is what the capitalist candidate proposes to the thinking and decent people of this country.

Yesterday, Henrique Capriles Radonski's main message was that the first thing he will do away with is the division of the country in two: those who are with the government and those who are against it, categorized by the ruling party as “enemies of the People”. Capriles promises to govern for the Venezuelan people, period. Let's see how many insults we receive today from the Commander who we've dared to doubt over thirteen years of his work in government, most notably, the ubiquitous propaganda praising his revolutionary stance.

That's why I liked that yesterday the candidate was affectionately called “El Flaco” [“The thin one”]. There were hundreds of t-shirts that read “The Flaco President”, recalling the woman who told him: “Skinny boy, you have the face of a President” in contrast to the promotional “First God, second my Commander” which was run in the media before the election campaign even officially began.

At the same time, Mitchelle Vidal interprets [es] the image shared by Alberto Rojas in his blog Caracas Shots when a mural urging non-violence was hidden by political advertising:

This is how a mural, created a few days ago by a group dedicated to urban art which committed the sin of speaking for non-violence, ended up. One of its spokesmen was no less than Ghandi, universal icon of peace, and it also had text alluding to courtesy and other ways to be a good citizen.

But friends of the government covered it with a bunch of posters of the candidate's official campaign.

Very clear message. Violence versus non-violence.

From the side of those who support the President's campaign, the blog Un Grano de Maíz [es] explains the difference the author finds between the two candidates and what he sees as the importance of Hugo Chávez's plan:

Last Sunday and Monday two options were places on the ballot, two civilization projects that are as opposite as water and oil.

…With [Capriles] there's no choice but to be subjugated to the support of imperialist squandering, the salvation of its terminal crisis. […] The other possibility presented in the electoral battle points the way to overcome capitalism, looks for ways to organize that enhance social strength, that integrate us as a society.

It's not just an electoral proposal, it is the future of the country, of this generation and those to follow, to overcome capitalism, and socialism is the only way to achieve this, it is the continuation of the struggle for human freedom going on for milennium.

Finally, José Roberto Duque in his blog Tracción de Sangre [es] points out what he considers crucial in this contest:

The official start of the campaign opens up a new political cycle in Venezuela (a crucial, decisive one): it's the final stage of the electoral process. It will define how many Venezuelans will continue with the project of building a model for the country and for humanity that began in 1998.

But there is another moment in our history to anticipate, analyze, think about and discuss responsibly: the moment in which we put into practice lessons learned in organizing the people for the people, in the form of self government, in the gradual demolition of the old state and the bold leap into another form of popular organization: the dream of Chavez, which in its most conscious state is one where, as we understand today, it abandons its mammoth duties and leaves to the people the mission of building. What do we gain with winning and winning and winning elections if we don't test ways to continue and continue and continue as a people and not just applauders of leaders?

It's a big job but it must be discussed from now on. A “now” that continues through the titanic effort in pursuit of victory for Chavez on October 7.

And if we lose? Well, we'll have to carry on with the task but in harsher conditions, terrible and bloody. But we must carry on. Nobody said that the Revolution is something that can be done only with an ally in Miraflores.